I thought that was about the Tinanic tourist sub for a moment.
From a European perspective the AUKUS deal debacle was really unfortunate, but I wonder what Australians think about it now. Relying on the US doesn’t seem that bad, and the nuclear subs really should be more capable, right?
The real advantage to nuclear subs is their operational range, which is definitely an asset to the US and probably is to Australia. However, the most important part of the AUKUS deal is that not only is the US handing over some (probably) Flight III 688i boats or Virginias in the interim, but also the US and the UK are working with Australia to come up with an indigenous design for Australia to manufacture in country. The US and UK are also working to train Australian sailors and engineers on how to build, operate, maintain, and retire nuclear submarines, and that goes a lot further towards building Australia’s defence capabilities than buying a handful of diesel boats from France.
I thought that was about the Tinanic tourist sub for a moment.
From a European perspective the AUKUS deal debacle was really unfortunate, but I wonder what Australians think about it now. Relying on the US doesn’t seem that bad, and the nuclear subs really should be more capable, right?
The real advantage to nuclear subs is their operational range, which is definitely an asset to the US and probably is to Australia. However, the most important part of the AUKUS deal is that not only is the US handing over some (probably) Flight III 688i boats or Virginias in the interim, but also the US and the UK are working with Australia to come up with an indigenous design for Australia to manufacture in country. The US and UK are also working to train Australian sailors and engineers on how to build, operate, maintain, and retire nuclear submarines, and that goes a lot further towards building Australia’s defence capabilities than buying a handful of diesel boats from France.